Sectarianism the Danger

from Willie Thompson Ken Tarbuck's analysis of the post-1945 Labour Government is breathtaking if nothing else. One would have thought that it was the generally reactionary context in which that government operated plus the fahlure to advance beyond its reformist initiatives, rather than its success in executing them, which brought about the crisis on the left, Ken Tarbuck stresses social servicesand nationalisationhe nowhere mentions the intense implementation of cold-war policy, colonial repression, rearmament, wage-freeze and strike-breaking. Of course the point can be made that the Attlee Government nowhere betrayed socialist principles because it never had any, but this hardly advances the argument. The question of stalinism, while germane, is not fundamental to the present call for unity, It is quite inadmissable to use this as a pretext for excommnicating the C.P., which for its part, does not propose to rake over in a sectarian manner the historical past of other sections of the left. The important point is this: whatever the shortcomings may be, the C.P. is the only considerable organised marxist force in Britain and no effective fight on the British left is possible unless this is taken into account, ‘Finally, the implied hint that the C.P.G.B. may not be totally behind the N.L.F. is completely objectionable, Even the most superficial aquaittance with current party literdure should be sufficient to destroy such an idea, The N.L.F. is quite willing to negotiate- provided that the U.S. abides by the terms of the Geneva Agreements— and the C,P. fully endorses this demand. Ken Tarbuck's article is unfortunately one more example of that sectarianism which is the plague of the British left(C.P.included)and needs to be decisively broken before any advances will be made, WAR IS NOW TOTAL from John. Attenborough Ken Tarbuck's rejoinder to Arnold Kettle was disappointing apart from i reminder of the pivotal importance of nationalisation unier workers' convrol. It displayed a flagrant disregard of the realities of power and implied that the end justifies the means. He calls for ‘struggle against imperialism until it is defeated'; for a 'policy directed to defeating America and its allies in their overseas adventures', Has he forgotten the basic lesson of the 50's: war has become total,- and absurd? Guerilla war cannot bypass total war, for as we see in Vietnam, it escalates until there is the naked confrntation of the Super Powers poised for sudden and complete annhilation of each otheree. Socialists who fight for the survival of the human race and the establishing of peaceful procedures for rapid advance to international justice and prosperity will need realism, stoical persevetance, and programmes formulated at a high intellectual level, I suggest to Mr. Tarbuck that this kind of approach to Vietnam requires, among other things, not sneering at the 1954 Geneva Agreements, but campaigning for their implementation. This in turn requires that we support and attempt to influence those groups and individuals in the U.S. who stand by the 4greements, who accept the autonomy of the NIF, and who have a REAL CHANCE of modifying American foreign policy, For if they, - “ unsocialist though they are, can prevail, then peaceful coexistence will become me&@ningful and valuable- especially to those Vietnamese and Americans who have to kill and be killed. One final point: there is a danger of talking of imperialism as though it were & monolithic, immutable monster, We are really talking about a number of states which have dissimilar social, economic, political systems, populated by human beings at various stages of enlightenment. Consequently there P18. alternative foreign policies to acquiescence in the status quo v,endless SOFT iote